Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Dec. 22, 2023

Rich v. State of New York

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:21-cv-03835
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil RightsSummary JudgmentPro Se
In one sentence

In Rich v. State of New York, Judge Torres denied detectives’ summary-judgment motion because whether Rich signed a release remained disputed.

Who this affects

Benjamin Samuel Rich and defendants Michael Miller and Vincent Corrando. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, leaving the release issue unresolved.

What happened

In Rich v. State of New York, Benjamin Samuel Rich sued after alleging that he was falsely arrested. The remaining defendants were NYPD detectives Michael Miller and Vincent Corrando.

While incarcerated, Rich had allegedly signed a general release. The defendants argued that the release barred his claims, but Rich said he did not sign it or authorize anyone to sign it.

Judge Torres found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation and adopted it in full. She denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because whether Rich signed the release was a disputed factual issue.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rich v. State of New York · No. 1:21-cv-03835
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Dec. 22, 2023

Background

Benjamin Samuel Rich, formerly known as Samuel Guillaume, brought this action without a lawyer, alleging that he was falsely arrested on January 27, 2016. After Rich amended his complaint and an earlier motion to dismiss, the remaining defendants were Michael Miller and Vincent Corrando, identified in the opinion as NYPD detectives.

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when the materials show that no important factual dispute requires a trial. The defendants argued that Rich’s claims were barred by a general release he had signed while incarcerated.

Report and Recommendation

The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. He recommended denying the motion because Rich maintained that he did not sign or authorize the signing of the release, making that an unresolved factual dispute.

No party objected to the recommendation within the time allowed. Judge Torres therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis. She found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Torres adopted Judge Gorenstein’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 121. The opinion does not resolve the disputed question of whether Rich signed or authorized the release.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.